defendant forfeited claim in Illinois

2025See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988).

2025See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988).

2011See People v. Coleman, 2011 IL App (1st) 091005, ¶ 27 (“The argument urged before us that ‘[defendant’s] trial attorney *** misinformed [defendant] that, if he were to testify, [defendant’s] prior juvenile adjudications would be admissible for impeachment’ was not raised in the defendant’s postconviction petition and cannot now be urged before us.”).

2011See People v. Coleman, 2011 IL App (1st) 091005, ¶ 27 , 353 Ill.Dec. 838 , 956 N.E.2d 966 ("The argument urged before us that `[defendant's] trial attorney * * * misinformed [defendant] that, if he were to testify, [defendant's] prior juvenile adjudications would be admissible for impeachment' was not raised in the defendant's postconviction petition and cannot now be urged before us.").

2009App. 3d 532, 533-34 , 388 N.E.2d 923, 924 (1979) (noting that the appellate court could find forfeited the defendant’s argument on appeal that the trial court was biased, prejudiced, or acted improperly for failure to raise it in the trial court, although the court did address the issue and found no actual bias); People v. Nevitt, 135 Ill. 2d 423, 460 , 553 N.E.2d 368, 383 (1990) (finding the defendant forfeited his claim that a comment by the trial judge demonstrated the trial judge’s bias against him where the defendant raised it for the first time before the supreme court).

2009App. 3d 532, 533-34 , 388 N.E.2d 923, 924 (1979) (noting that the appellate court could find forfeited the defendant’s argument on appeal that the trial court was biased, prejudiced, or acted improperly for failure to raise it in the trial court, although the court did address the issue and found no actual bias); People v. Nevitt, 135 Ill. 2d 423, 460 , 553 N.E.2d 368, 383 (1990) (finding the defendant forfeited his claim that a comment by the trial judge demonstrated the trial judge’s bias against him where the defendant raised it for the first time before the supreme court).

2009App. 3d 532, 533-34 , 388 N.E.2d 923, 924 (1979) (noting that the appellate court could find forfeited the defendant’s argument on appeal that the trial court was biased, prejudiced, or acted improperly for failure to raise it in the trial court, although the court did address the issue and found no actual bias); People v. Nevitt, 135 Ill. 2d 423, 460 , 553 N.E.2d 368, 383 (1990) (finding the defendant forfeited his claim that a comment by the trial judge demonstrated the trial judge’s bias against him where the defendant raised it for the first time before the supreme court).

2009See, e.g., People v. Thornton, 70 Ill.App.3d 532, 533-34 , 26 Ill.Dec. 922 , 388 N.E.2d 923, 924 (1979) (noting that the appellate court could find forfeited the defendant's argument on appeal that the trial court was biased, prejudiced, or acted improperly for failure to raise it in the trial court, although the court did address the issue and found no actual bias); People v. Nevitt, 135 Ill.2d 423, 460 , 142 Ill.Dec. 854 , 553 N.E.2d 368, 383 (1990) (finding the defendant forfeited his claim that a comment by the trial judge demonstrated the trial judge's bias against him where the defendant

2007See Allen, 222 Ill. 2d at 351-54 , 856 N.E.2d at 355-57 . 32 We turn then to the defendant's ineffective-assistance argument.

2007See Allen, 222 Ill. 2d at 351-54 , 856 N.E.2d at 355-57 . 32 We turn then to the defendant's ineffective-assistance argument.

2026See People v. Jackson, 2022 IL App (4th) 200625-U, ¶ 72 (finding the defendant forfeited review of her excluded-evidence claim by failing to make an offer of proof); see also Snowstar Corp. v. A&A Air Condition & Refrigeration Service, Inc., 2024 IL App (4th) 230757, ¶ 73 (finding the defendant forfeited a claim for failing to make an offer of proof either formally through witness testimony or informally through counsel with a detailed explanation of what the testimony would include).

2025While it is true that Miller was not previously available to the defendant, our supreme court held in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” See also Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 40 (“As Miller -4- No. 1-23-1823 does not directly apply to young adults, it also does not provide cause for a young adult offender to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.”); People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93 (“Miller do

2025While it is true that Miller was not previously available to the defendant, our supreme court held in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” See also Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 40 (“As Miller -4- No. 1-23-1823 does not directly apply to young adults, it also does not provide cause for a young adult offender to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.”); People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93 (“Miller do

2024See People v. Shief, 2016 IL App (1st) 141022, ¶ 54 (finding that the defendant forfeited a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when he failed to raise specific allegations regarding the claim in his postconviction petition).

2023See People v. Hutt, 2023 IL 128170, ¶ 27 (the defendant forfeited his claim that the trial court denied him his fundamental right to a jury trial because he failed to raise the issue in a posttrial motion). ¶ 35 Forfeiture aside, to secure a conviction of section 501(a)(2) of the Code, the State was required to prove that defendant was under the influence of alcohol while driving. 625 ILCS 5/11- 501(a)(2) (West 2020).

2023In response, the State argues that the defendant forfeited the claim, and that he has not established that he is entitled to plain error review. ¶ 20 “It is well settled that, to preserve a claim of sentencing error, both a contemporaneous objection and written postsentencing motion raising the issue are required.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010) (citing People v. Bannister, 232 7 Ill. 2d 52 , 76 (2008)).

2022This rule applies to the claim presently at issue regardless of whether it is viewed as an alleged violation of due process or equal protection (see, e.g., People v. Newman, 365 Ill.

2022However, we do not reach the merits of either argument because the defendant forfeited this claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. 1 1 The defendant did not raise a second alternative argument that, in event of forfeiture, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, so we do not address that possibility. -6- No. 1-20-0471 ¶ 16 “The purpose of a postconviction proceeding is to permit inquiry into constitutional issues involved in the original conviction and sentence that were not, and could not have been, adjudicated previously on direct appeal.” P

2022However, we do not reach the merits of either argument because the defendant forfeited this claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. 1 1 The defendant did not raise a second alternative argument that, in event of forfeiture, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, so we do not address that possibility. -6- No. 1-20-0471 ¶ 16 “The purpose of a postconviction proceeding is to permit inquiry into constitutional issues involved in the original conviction and sentence that were not, and could not have been, adjudicated previously on direct appeal.” P

2022However, we do not reach the merits of either argument because the defendant forfeited this claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. 1 1 The defendant did not raise a second alternative argument that, in event of forfeiture, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, so we do not address that possibility. -6- No. 1-20-0471 ¶ 16 “The purpose of a postconviction proceeding is to permit inquiry into constitutional issues involved in the original conviction and sentence that were not, and could not have been, adjudicated previously on direct appeal.” P

2022However, we do not reach the merits of either argument because the defendant forfeited this claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. 1 1 The defendant did not raise a second alternative argument that, in event of forfeiture, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, so we do not address that possibility. -6- No. 1-20-0471 ¶ 16 “The purpose of a postconviction proceeding is to permit inquiry into constitutional issues involved in the original conviction and sentence that were not, and could not have been, adjudicated previously on direct appeal.” P

2020See id. at 17-18 (concluding that the defendant forfeited his challenge by failing to make a timely objection, noting that “multiple references” to the objectionable testimony went unchallenged before the objection was made). ¶ 151 However, even if plaintiff properly preserved his claim, I would find that the trial court properly allowed Bova to testify about the sagittal CT images over plaintiff’s objections that they were not timely disclosed or included in Bova’s Rule 213(f) disclosure. ¶ 152 Here, the trial court allowed Bova to testify about the images, finding that the exhibits were demo

2020People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 308 (2010) (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347 (2000)).

2020See People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498, 507 (2004). ¶ 28 Reversed and remanded with instructions. - 11 -

2020People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 308 (2010) (citing People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 347 (2000)).

2011See People v. Coleman, 2011 IL App (1st) 091005, ¶ 27 , 353 Ill.Dec. 838 , 956 N.E.2d 966 ("The argument urged before us that `[defendant's] trial attorney * * * misinformed [defendant] that, if he were to testify, [defendant's] prior juvenile adjudications would be admissible for impeachment' was not raised in the defendant's postconviction petition and cannot now be urged before us.").

2011See People v. Coleman, 2011 IL App (1st) 091005, ¶ 27 , 353 Ill.Dec. 838 , 956 N.E.2d 966 ("The argument urged before us that `[defendant's] trial attorney * * * misinformed [defendant] that, if he were to testify, [defendant's] prior juvenile adjudications would be admissible for impeachment' was not raised in the defendant's postconviction petition and cannot now be urged before us.").